SynthesisCritical care science2026
Comparison of ramped and sniffing position for endotracheal intubation in obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Critical care science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of the ramp position over the sniffing position for endotracheal intubation in obese patients.
methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ramping with sniffing position for endotracheal intubation in obese patients. We systematically searched PubMed®, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes included Cormack-Lehane grading and first-pass success. We applied a random-effects model to pool relative risks and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Statistical analyses were performed using R 4.4.2.
resultsWe included four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies. Of the 938 participants, 54.16% (508) were intubated in the ramp position. Ramping did not improve first pass success (RR 1.07; 95%CI 0.98 - 1.16; p = 0.14; I2 = 61.6%), Cormack-Lehane grades 1 - 2 (RR 0.99; 95%CI 0.97 - 1.02; p = 0.61; I2 = 0%), or Cormack-Lehane grades 3 - 4 (RR 1.94; 95%CI 0.86 - 4.37; p = 0.11; I2 = 0%). Although ramping decreased mean tube insertion and intubation time, these results did not persist in the sensitivity analyses. However, ramping decreased the number of intubation attempts in the operating room subgroup (RR 0.33; 95%CI 0.19 - 0.58; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%) and video-laryngoscopy subgroup (RR 0.33; 95%CI 0.15 - 0.70; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%).
conclusionOur results suggest that ramping offers first-pass success and laryngeal view rates comparable to those of the sniffing position. In terms of secondary outcomes, patients in the operating room or those intubated with a video-laryngoscopy may benefit from decreased intubation attempts. Future studies with standardized definitions are required to evaluate these findings in different settings.PROSPERO register: CRD42025638839.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.